News picks
Forum » Resources / News picks
Number of threads: 2543
Number of posts: 2604
rss icon RSS: New threads | New posts
Articles from other sources; copy title, first paragraph, and put URL in body of post.
Order by:
Last post date
Thread starting date
Create a new thread
Thread name Started Posts Recent post
Today's decision does not abolish software patents. [...] The good news is that the Supreme Court doesn't seem to have endorsed any CAFC ruling or any USPTO grant regarding software patents. It's a narrow decision and it won't change software patent rulings in the lower courts or grants at the USPTO.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
28 Jun 2010 18:54
1  
In the US Supreme Court case Bilski vs Kappos, the court has ruled that Bilski's business method patent was invalid, but also ruled that the "machine or transformation" test, which earlier courts had applied as an exclusive rule, was not the only test for patentability. [...] Daniel Ravicher, the SFLC's legal director said the court had missed an opportunity to "send a strong signal that ideas are not patentable subject matter" and that the rejection of the Bilski patent "got rid of a symptom, but failed to treat the real cause".
by: ggiedkeggiedke
28 Jun 2010 18:48
1  
Today’s short opinion is principally one of negation – it rejects an exclusive standard adopted by the en banc Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court concluded that it was sufficient to recognize the patentability of business methods, reject the Federal Circuit’s standard, and recognize that the particular patent before it was an unpatentable “abstract idea” precluded from patentability by the Court’s prior precedents. The Court did not otherwise elaborate on the proper test. [...] The upshot for the time beings is that business method patents survive, and likely are somewhat more patentable than under the Federal Circuit’s standard, though how much more so remains opaque.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
28 Jun 2010 18:42
1  
Although Bilski's claims were held unpatentably abstract, the Supreme Court has re-affirmed that the door to patent eligibility should remain broad and open.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
28 Jun 2010 18:34
1  
The US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bilski v. Kappos, at last. The lower court's decision is affirmed, and so no patent for Bilski. However, business methods are not found totally ineligible for patents, just this one. But the door is not swung wide open. According to Florian Mueller, this is the least restrictive decision possible, bar granting the Bilski patent. SCOTUS' decision does not do away with even one software patent that already exists, nor does it raise the bar for the future
by: ggiedkeggiedke
28 Jun 2010 18:32
1  
These companies are all being sued [...] by Software Restore Solutions LLC, which alleges that they have breached a patent it owns called 'Workgroup network manager for controlling the operation of workstations within the computer network' (US Pat No. 5,832, 511).
by: ggiedkeggiedke
18 Jun 2010 13:07
1  
At last some transparency has come into the quarrels over the question as to whether or not the proposals for creating a European and Community Patents Court (PC) having jurisdiction not only over EU Patents on the territory of the EU but also with regard to non-EU countries being signatory to the European Patent Convention (EPC) are compatible with the Treaties of the European Union. [...] This TFEU is a monster. I do commiserate with the Judges who are confronted with the inescapable duty to make sense of all that. [...] Obviously the points made by the opponents of the PC are least partially seen even by the supporters. For me as a humble Patent Attorney it appears to be entirely open as to whether or not the Court might accept the golden argumentative bridges [...] in order to make the overall construct looking compatible with the EU Treaties.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
17 Jun 2010 22:01
1  
[A] couple of years ago Barracuda Networks asked [...] to help find prior art to help deal with a Trend Micro patent on [...] blocking viruses at the gateway [...] the ITC then said the patent, #5,623,600, was invalid, and you'd think that would be the end of that. But no, software patents live in their own illogical alternate universe, and because Trend Micro and Barracuda settled instead of getting a court ruling of invalidity, Trend Micro was free to threaten others and to continue to take in royalties on that patent. Late in 2008, after the Barracuda revelations, Fortinet told Trend Micro it thought its patent was invalid and that it didn't think it should have to pay royalties on an invalid patent, and when Trend Micro didn't agree, Fortinet filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity [...]
by: ggiedkeggiedke
03 Jun 2010 21:49
2 by ggiedkeggiedke
04 Jun 2010 23:14 Jump!
Inventors frustrated with waiting for a decision on their applications from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may soon be able to pay for expedited review under a proposal to be announced Thursday. USPTO chief David Kappos is proposing a new three-track system for patent applications that would allow applicants to pay an undisclosed amount on top of the standard $1,090 filing fee to jump to the front of the line for expedited reviews.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
03 Jun 2010 19:22
1  
This decision certainly is not a landmark ruling setting out a major change in patent law for computer-implemented inventions in Germany. It's rather a continuation of a long line of thinking by the German courts. It is interesting because it is one of several cases in which the Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) has given applicants leave to appeal in order to clarify the law in Germany on computer-implemented patents. [...] The court confirms previous case law that an invention is technical when the invention relates to the functioning of a computer system and allows the interworking of the computer system's elements. However, the court also confirms that this does not mean that all computer-implemented inventions are per se patentable. On the contrary, it emphasises that merely using a computer program does not confer patentability.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
26 May 2010 19:58
3 by ggiedkeggiedke
01 Jun 2010 07:27 Jump!
Recently the Government announced its intention to adopt a select committee’s recommendation to “exclude software from patentability” – that is, to ban software patents. Where will the ban — if implemented — leave local software developers’ ability to protect their intellectual property? How will the removal of software from patentability, if confirmed, affect the ability of local IT firms to protect the intellectual property in their software?
by: ggiedkeggiedke
26 May 2010 20:14
1  
Most people in the hacking community are well aware that patents represent one of the most serious threats to free software. But the situation is actually even worse than it seems, thanks to the proliferation of what are called patent thickets. To understand why these are so bad, and why they represent a particular problem for software, it is necessary to go back to the beginning of patent law.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
26 May 2010 19:55
1  
As the Supreme Court issues its last decisions before the end of the spring session, intellectual-property lawyers have been asking: Where's Bilski? This is the case that may deliver a knockout blow to business method patents, those patents that everybody from free-software zealots to conservative Republicans love to hate.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
26 May 2010 19:41
1  
Prof Chien notes that Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, authored the US government's merits brief in Bilski case arguing that Bilski's claim is unpatentable. She reports that "in the last 20 years, every single amicus brief authored by the US Government in a Supreme Court patent case except one predicted the case outcome." Chien writes "If history is any indication, the Supreme Court will almost certainly follow the US Government's lead and rule that the method is unpatentable and likely adopt some of its reasoning as well."
by: ggiedkeggiedke
18 May 2010 19:44
1  
An overview over IP-Blogs' takes on the ruling that the EPO President's referral questions were inadmissible.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
18 May 2010 19:40
1  
At first glance, it looks as if we’re in the middle of a patent lawsuit Super Bowl party. Nearly every large mobile phone player — with the exception of Microsoft, Palm and, so far, Google — has recently been involved in some sort of patent litigation regarding mobile technologies.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
18 May 2010 19:00
1  
A jury found that the patents at issue were invalid and worthless.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
01 May 2010 14:57
2 by ggiedkeggiedke
04 May 2010 18:44 Jump!
In reply to an Open Letter by Hugo Roy (FSFE) to Steve Jobs about Apple's use of Open Standards, Jobs sent a terse reply, indicating that a patent pool against the open video standard Theora is being assembled.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
30 Apr 2010 22:35
1  
The mobile phone wars got a more interesting late on Tuesday as Microsoft publicly asserted for the first time that Google's Android operating system infringes on its intellectual property. Microsoft has taken the position, according to those close to the company, that Android infringes on the company's patented technology and that the infringement applies broadly in areas ranging from the user interface to the underlying operating system.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
28 Apr 2010 15:11
1  
Open source software champions have been influential in excluding software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill. Clause 15 of the draft Bill, as reported back from the Commerce Select Committee, lists a number of classes of invention which should not be patentable and includes the sub-clause “a computer program is not a patentable invention.”
by: ggiedkeggiedke
31 Mar 2010 06:46
3 by ggiedkeggiedke
15 Apr 2010 13:37 Jump!